Hacker News Reader

Comment by throw2016 | Hacker News Reader

throw2016

This is a bit like saying the wealthy are all bad or the poor are lazy. Sure some could be but if one takes the worst examples to draw a conclusion then it becomes idealogical.

The demonization of unions in the country is a pointless exercise and seems ideological.

Unions are an organizational structure, like industry groups or lobbying groups. Just like the latter exist to represent industry interests, unions need to exist to represent workers rights and interests. Like any other organization they can do good or bad depending on their management and objectives.

View on HN

> The demonization of unions in the country is a pointless exercise and seems ideological.

Ideological? A vast multitude of people have cited ongoing examples of misbehavior and abuse that they themselves have personally witnessed, which you casually handwave away by saying it's just "ideological".

How about unions start actually cleaning up their act and making themselves respected champions of the worker again?

It is ideological. The same people decrying the wholesale existence of unions due to bad unions are very rarely willing to decry the wholesale existence of corporations due to bad corporations. Unions and corporations are just flipsides of the same coin. They exist to balance one another.

> The same people decrying the wholesale existence of unions due to bad unions are very rarely willing to decry the wholesale existence of corporations due to bad corporations. Unions and corporations are just flipsides of the same coin.

Unions are corporations, in every sense of the word, both legally and conceptually.

Unions are just a special type of corporation that has been granted a special right: the exclusive, irrevocable[0] right to dictate the terms of employment of its members.

In some states, the union even literally acts as the employing entity, creating a de facto subcontractor relationship.

[0] In theory, the NLRA allows for members to deunionize. In practice, this is almost impossible - once a union forms, there is almost no way it's members can feasibly remove it if they decide they don't want to be represented by it anymore.

I guess my point is more about the language difference employed when we talk unions vs companies. For example, I posted a thread earlier today about Wells Fargo abuses and there was no one in there saying: "see corporations are a bad idea and we should get rid of them." Yet there's a few people in here making that exact comment about unions. To me that's a contradiction.

No, they aren't legally or conceptually.

Legally, they're in a unique class. They're 501c5s. They have their own unique set of laws that apply to them. Conceptually, they're democratic institutions and not at all like corporations.

Irrevocable? Getting rid of them is the exact same process as starting one! You have to convince your coworkers and win a vote.

> No, they aren't [corporations] legally or conceptually. Legally, they're in a unique class. They're 501c5s.

What do you think a 501(c)5 corporation is?

> Getting rid of them is the exact same process as starting one! You have to convince your coworkers and win a vote.

Sort of. Companies are strictly prohibited from taking retaliatory action against employees who attempt to organize their workplace. In extreme cases, this can even result in mandatory recognition of a union without a vote.

Unions, on the other hand, have great leeway to terminate membership association with members who speak out publicly against the union, which is de facto termination. They are also legally permitted to suppress counter-organizational activities in many other ways which companies cannot do legally to prevent the formation of a union.

In practice, deunionizing a workplace is many orders of magnitude more difficult than unionizing it, because you have to obtain the written permission of 30% of the bargaining unit without attracting the attention of the union leadership.

There's a reason that only 10% of union members in the US ever had the opportunity to vote (for or against) union representation - unions are not legally required to undergo periodic re-certification votes, and they are given great latitude to prevent themselves from ever having to face a vote.

501c5's are non-profit organizations.

The idea that unions have greater ability to coerce workers is LAUGHABLE. First, to your point directly, the NLRB website notes that "Threats to employees that they will lose their jobs unless they support the union" are ILLEGAL, just as it is for corporations. At the same time, however, corporations are able to force employees to listen to anti-union propaganda and pressure them to vote how they want.

If you want to compromise, and say every workplace in America gets to vote every year on whether to have a union, I'd take that deal. Because yes, getting 30% signing decert cards is difficult -- as is getting the 30% of authorization cards to have a vote in favor of a union in the first place without attracting the attention of management! But no, you want elections in places WITH unions annually, but you don't want elections in places WITHOUT them. Democracy only when it suits your desired outcomes.

> 501c5's are non-profit organizations.

Which are corporations.

> But no, you want elections in places WITH unions annually, but you don't want elections in places WITHOUT them. Democracy only when it suits your desired outcomes.

Aside from having a number of basic misunderstandings about corporate and labor law, you're making enough assumptions and judgements about what I want that it's clear you're really interested in having a discussion with a straw man that doesn't actually exist, not with me. So I don't think this discussion is going to go anywhere fruitful.

Here's my attempt at compromise on the "corporation" thing. They're in the same basic category as churches and social clubs. And these different types of non-profit organizations have to go through a process to be recognized by governments. I think we can agree on that. People can decide for themselves whether you're being misleading with how you use the term and what you say makes them different from, say, Google.

The only assumption I made is that you would be opposed to a union election in every workplace in America on an annual basis. If that's wrong, let me know, and I'll actually be quite thrilled.

No one dismisses the concept of banking because of bad banks or startups because of say Theranos, so why must unions live up to this mythical status of a perfect organization?

There will be bad eggs so blame them. Using that to demonize unions as a concept is ideological and disingenuous.

Business and industries have industry groups and lobbying groups. Professionals like lawyers, doctors, architects and engineers have their own groups. Why would everyone in the system need protection and safeguarding of their rights and interests except workers?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com